RE: [wg-review] Covering letter to WG-Review Report
Sotiris, I think Joanna's idea of an on-going review process is quite good!
It is a structural change to the DNSO that is certainly missing. Is it too
late to add it to your submission?
Proposed language (Since time is of the essence, I'll just post my suggested
addition to Joanna's recommendation):
That the WG-Review (or a newly constituted WG) be designated as a Permanent
Review Working Group (PR-WG) with the mission to: convene to evaluate
the performance of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) and,
if necessary, to recommend to the BoD structural or procedural changes to
the DNSO that will help ICANN fulfill its mission of operating as a global,
bottom-up, Internet policy coordination body. To carry out its mission, the
PR-WG will submit a timely report to the BoD that includes responses or
comments from the DNSO constituencies.
> > Status Quo:
> > An effort has been taken by the NC to terminate the life of
> > WG-Review. This is a catastrophic "operational" failure.
> > Recommendation:
> > Extend the life of WG-Review or charge the NC with creating a
> > new and ongoing Review Committee.
> Do we want a Committee or WG? Committee sounds as if its
> appointed. WGs are
> called for...
> Your thoughts, please.
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> Working Chair, WG Review
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html